Can you bestow harmless curses?

[Oberon Kenobi]

As the title says. Since Bestow Curse (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/bestow-curse) gives you the capacity to bestow different effects from those listed, can you cast the spell without actually creating any directly harmful effects–or are there any examples of curses that wouldn't really hinder you much? Beneficial effects would be cheese, obviously, but I could see effects like permanently changing your skin color to bright pink or something like that... I'm sure there are better examples than that of actual curses floating around. ._.;

My hypothetical plan here is to have an Umbral (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/umbral-spell-metamagic) Bestow Curse cast on myself, so I can have a permanent darkness effect following me around that can't be dispelled without Break Enchantment and the like. Aside from the free miss chance, it seems like it would be really beneficial for classes and abilities that rely on shadows and darkness, like Shadowdancer.

I'm sure other folks could name similar rider effects that would benefit from being latched onto a curse–and I'd like to hear them, if you've got 'em!

[Nifft]

I would allow harmless curses, but I would NOT allow a harmless curse to duplicate the effect of any existing spell.

So, Darkness is a spell. You can't get permanent Darkness without paying some XP cost to make it permanent (even though it's not listed in the Permanency table), or making an item.

The sorts of harmless curses that I'd allow:
- You now have diabolic looking horns like a Tiefling.
- Your eyes glow bright red. This makes it slightly more difficult to hide.
- A small, iridescent cloud follows you around and announces your flatulence in a loud, clear voice (in Draconic).

I mean, it's a curse. It's gotta suck somehow.

[atemu1234]

One of my players who had a penchant for prostitutes was hit with a Curse of Fertility. Make of that what you will.

[JDL]

So, if this was my call as a DM, the first thing I'd do with your character asking for an umbral curse would be to tell them to perform spell research to cast Darkness with Permanency, as others have said. Next, I'd rule that Bestow Curse would cause you to personally experience clouded, darkened vision that grants all creatures concealment from your attacks, but does not count as darkness or concealment for the purpose of any skill checks such as Hide or abilities such as Shadow Step.

For alternative Curse ideas, 3.5e had some published suggestions in the Book of Vile Darkness and Dragon Magazine #348. These have bee compiled into lists, a handy one of which is available here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12840375&postcount=19

While I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, I also recall seeing a published list of minor curses, in the vein of simple roleplaying hooks. One such example was the Curse of the Statue, wherein anyone under the curse's effects attracts local birdlife such as pidgeons, which proceed to defecate most enthusiastically on the character.

[Sagetim]

No, getting a constant darkness effect on you counts as a beneficial 'curse'.

However, you could be really petty about curses and cast bestow curse on someone to make it so that their pants fall down at inopportune times. Like when they are running away from something, or in the middle of an important ceremony, or what have you. Oh, or a curse that makes your eyebrows turn glowing neon green when you lie and blink each time you lie with the words 'I am lying' across your forehead, visible through any covering that might be placed to try and impede the effect. Or a curse of fertility on a man that causes them to become pregnant every time they lay with a prostitute. As in the man becomes pregnant. Or you could go with a curse that causes someone's toenails to always suffer from a fungus infection, and grow in thick and hooked, causing them to hook around and dig back into the target's feet for constant ingrown toenails that are also stank and fungusy. Or a curse of mildly annoying itching, as if their body was being bitten by bugs and they felt it every time. Or, as an alternative to that, a curse that makes it so you feel it every time a bug bites you. After all, this is the middle ages and most people don't have prestidigitation to keep free of lice, and mosquito's are a thing.

[Telok]

A random hunk of cheese falls from the sky every time the character refers to someone else as a quest giver, boss mob, or shop.

[Necroticplague]

Bestow Curse only states that a custom curse should be no MORE powerful than the listed ones (which are fairly potent). Having a custom curse be weaker to the point of no mechanical effect and only some fluff (i.e, you have some unusual trait that makes you easy to identify, and that you can't cover up, like always being bright pink, or smelling like a sulfur vent) should be perfectly fine. The use of Umbral Spell like that is actually pretty clever. Of course, the underlying curse would do have to do something, even if it was inconsequential.

[grarrrg]

I would allow harmless curses, but I would NOT allow a harmless curse to duplicate the effect of any existing spell.

So, Darkness is a spell.


No, getting a constant darkness effect on you counts as a beneficial 'curse'.

:smallsigh:
Eh-hem:

My hypothetical plan here is to have an Umbral (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/umbral-spell-metamagic) Bestow Curse cast on myself

Note the "Umbral" in the post (with hyperlink no less!).

Umbral is a Metamagic feat.

What does Umbral do?

An umbral spell gains the darkness descriptor. As long as the spell is in effect, the creature or object affected radiates darkness in a 10-foot radius, reducing illumination similar to the effects of the darkness spell. Nonmagical sources of Light, such as....

UMBRAL is giving the Darkness _NOT_ Bestow Curse. The Curse is NOT Darkness.
He want's a minor Curse to pair with the Umbral benefit.

[Sagetim]

:smallsigh:
Eh-hem:


Note the "Umbral" in the post (with hyperlink no less!).

Umbral is a Metamagic feat.

What does Umbral do?


UMBRAL is giving the Darkness _NOT_ Bestow Curse. The Curse is NOT Darkness.
He want's a minor Curse to pair with the Umbral benefit.

Oh, so it's metamagic cheese. Thank you for pointing that out. I think I would have to rule as a GM that unless they also had a means of seeing through magical darkness (specifically, darkvision wouldn't cut it) that the fact that you've attached it to a curse means that the darkness is going to obscure your vision. Yes, someone could still warlock around that with (insert warlock vision invocation here), but it would require the extra effort.

By the rules, however, I think that would work fine. Maybe getting cursed so that your breath smells like catnip? I mean, seriously...it's pretty harmless unless you are near cats, or perhaps in a setting with catgirls. Or a curse that one of your legs is an inch shorter than the other (having no real impact beyond being noticed by maybe a handful of people). Or a curse that makes your palms hairy? oh, a curse that makes your skin transparent when exposed to sunlight. Which, since you're covered in magical darkness, is negated by the magical darkness.

[Oberon Kenobi]

UMBRAL is giving the Darkness _NOT_ Bestow Curse. The Curse is NOT Darkness.
He want's a minor Curse to pair with the Umbral benefit.^There ya go. :smalltongue:

I do appreciate the theory and balance talk, but this is one of those specific-trumps-general cases where duplicating another spell effect is what is mechanically supposed to happen, regardless of duration (though if it helps, the radius is smaller than that of the Darkness spell).

Incidentally, this also works with Arcane Mark and, hilariously, Continual Flame (have fun figuring out how those two effects interact).

Oh, so it's metamagic cheese. Thank you for pointing that out. I think I would have to rule as a GM that unless they also had a means of seeing through magical darkness (specifically, darkvision wouldn't cut it) that the fact that you've attached it to a curse means that the darkness is going to obscure your vision.Oh! Actually, that reminds me of something I'd completely forgotten about: Minor Spellblights (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/spellblights.html) can be inflicted by Bestow Curse. Of particular note is Ebon Eyes:
A spellcaster with ebon eyes develops a jet-black film over her eyes, which inverts her capacity to perceive light and darkness. The creature treats darkness as bright light, dim light as normal light, normal light as dim light, and bright light as darkness. The ebon eyes protect against blinding, dazzling, patterns, or other visual effects, granting a +2 bonus on all saving throws against those effects.If you have Darkvision, you treat all light levels as basically the same anyway, so the first part of the blight does nothing (save maybe reversing the conditions under which you see colors). And on top of that, you get a nice little save bonus along with your permanent darkness effect.

Now that's cheesy. :smalltongue:

[Krazzman]

Always misplace/lose/get stolen your left shoe. (Aka, the Stitch).

The other gender doesn't seem to like you as you come off as creepy (what with that darkness and so on...).

When you use cutlery others see bloodied weapons instead of the actual tools.

[Xuldarinar]

Just to throw in my 10 cents. Umbral Curse of Blindness.

[Forrestfire]

The book of vile darkness has a decent list of curses, including one that can be used as birth control. Presumably these could be grabbed and brought to Pathfinder.

[Taelas]

Every time you smoke, a fish falls on your head. :smallamused:

[Nifft]

Oh, it's the metamagic, not the curse itself.

Hmm. Not sure if I like that metamagic, but whatever.

Why not apply the metamagic to Arcane Mark or something else inherently harmless? You could totally spam Umbral Arcane Marks.

[Segev]

I'm going to chime in with a potentially opposing view to the prevailing: nothing actually says the "curse" has to be negative in the opinion of the "victim."

Perhaps the easiest example is a curse of sex change. For many, this is a terribly embarassing, frustrating, and even terrifying curse, due to what it does to existing and potential romantic entanglements, to political fortunes, and one's position and role in society. For some, they may not care one way or another - they're asexual, uninterested, and make their own place in society and politics by virtue of their actions. But for still others, it may even be a boon! The warrior queen who doesn't really care, personally, and needs an heir but doesn't want to take the time being pregnant; the youth who desperately wants to be a member of the all-female order of priestesses; the one whose lover is cursed similarly who wants to remain compatible (and can't find a way to break it)... And that doesn't get into simply wanting to be the opposite sex for its own sake.

Bestow curse is a powerful, useful spell if used creatively.

I've used it to curse another character to never find a crowbar again, after a few incidents wherein her use of a crowbar was instrumental to disasters striking the party.

There's also some classic curses: curse somebody such that every word they speak spills a frog or snake or lizard from their mouth. But at the same time, such can be edible, so it could help in a famine. Curse somebody to have footprints that face backwards, and it could help him evade trackers. Curse somebody to speak a different language; a dreadful curse if you replace their native tongue with something useless, but what if you replace it with a language they need soon?

A curse of fertility, as suggested above, could be a boon to a King who has not been able to get an heir. A curse of infertility could be a boon to somebody who wants more sex with fewer consequences. You could curse a drunkard to be unable to become inebriated; once he gets over the disappointment (and any withdrawl symptoms), however, he could drink anybody under the table.

You cannot give bonuses to stats, but you can create all sorts of story effects, and if your target thinks he's been "cursed with awesome..."

[Nifft]

I'm going to chime in with a potentially opposing view to the prevailing: nothing actually says the "curse" has to be negative in the opinion of the "victim."

Perhaps the easiest example is a curse of sex change.

The curse of the girdle of opposite gender is that the girdle is visually unappealing, and you cannot take it off in order to have sex.

It's unambiguously a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad item.

The gender-change is simply not its only relevant feature.

[Segev]

The curse of the girdle of opposite gender is that the girdle is visually unappealing, and you cannot take it off in order to have sex.

It's unambiguously a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad item.

The gender-change is simply not its only relevant feature.

In going to look it up, I discovered it's not on the SRD. To which write-up are you referring for this information? (I now wonder where I saw it. Maybe in the DMG, and it was for some strange reason labeled private IP?)

[Nifft]

In going to look it up, I discovered it's not on the SRD. To which write-up are you referring for this information? (I now wonder where I saw it. Maybe in the DMG, and it was for some strange reason labeled private IP?)

Which information in specific are you asking about?

[Taelas]

The girdle of opposite gender is in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/cursed-items#TOC-Girdle-of-Opposite-Gender); that may be where you saw it?

[Oberon Kenobi]

Why not apply the metamagic to Arcane Mark or something else inherently harmless? You could totally spam Umbral Arcane Marks.I totally planned on doing that in a campaign a couple of years back, actually, but the group broke up before we ever got to the right level for it. It was the Jade Regent AP, and I was planning on plastering these all over our caravans to provide some extra camouflage.

Great thing about Arcane Mark in particular is that you can put it on really tiny stuff, like a burned-out ioun stone or just like a little rock or something. Use it on sling stones and bury your enemies in darkness! And unless I'm misunderstanding the line of effect rules, I think you could actually Umbral Arcane Mark a small gem and keep it in a locket around your neck; just pop the locket open when you need a little cover and the darkness spreads out.

It's kinda goofy and not particularly powerful when you get right down to it (well, give or take the cheese above, especially if you're a Fetchling and get 50% miss chance when you're in dim lighting), but I appreciate that it's metamagic that does something interesting instead of just making your numbers bigger.

<snip>Nothing to add, but that's a great post. :smallsmile:

Which information in specific are you asking about?I suspect they assumed you were being serious rather than having a giggle in your assertion that the item is unfashionable and serves as a magical chastity belt. :smalltongue:

Which is actually totally beneficial if your character has taken any of the various vows of chastity that are floating around, by the way. Of which I can name three, counting 3.5... wait, is optimizing your lack of a sex life a thing?

[Nifft]

It's kinda goofy and not particularly powerful when you get right down to it (well, give or take the cheese above, especially if you're a Fetchling and get 50% miss chance when you're in dim lighting), but I appreciate that it's metamagic that does something interesting instead of just making your numbers bigger. Yeah. I think it's a clever use of a Metamagic feat to gain some benefit from a harmless spell.

But something about changing a harmful spell into a harmless one just to get the benefit... that rubs me the wrong way.

So I'd totally approve Arcane Mark, because as-written it works, but changing Bestow Curse to be harmless would not be okay with me.



Which is actually totally beneficial if your character has taken any of the various vows of chastity that are floating around, by the way. Of which I can name three, counting 3.5... wait, is optimizing your lack of a sex life a thing?

Yes, we call it "playing D&D".

[Svata]

Hey, the peak of my playing D&D(so far) was also the peak of my sex life (so far).

[Sagetim]

In going to look it up, I discovered it's not on the SRD. To which write-up are you referring for this information? (I now wonder where I saw it. Maybe in the DMG, and it was for some strange reason labeled private IP?)

From memory of the trading card of the ADND girdle of opposite gender?


The girdle of opposite gender is in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/cursed-items#TOC-Girdle-of-Opposite-Gender); that may be where you saw it?

oh, well, I suppose someone found it in the pathfinder rules.

Also, cursed items (at least used to) be unremovable without removing the curse first, so not being able to take the girdle off would be part of the curse because that's just how cursed items work.

[Keltest]

So back to the darkness effect for the moment, as a DM I would allow this, but keep in mind that having a massive cloud of magical darkness following you all the time is going to hinder you a lot more than it will help you. For example, youre sneaking in a moderately lit corridor. Someone comes down and notices the giant ball of magical darkness sitting in the middle of the hallway where there would normally be light. Even if they don't see you, specifically, theyre still going to raise the alarm, because there is something obviously out of place there. Youre also probably going to have a problem talking to people, for various reasons.

My advice would be that you find an object or creature that you can store in such a manner that the darkness would not be emanating unless it is removed from containment, if such a thing is possible, and curse/cast some permanent spell on that instead.

[Sagetim]

So back to the darkness effect for the moment, as a DM I would allow this, but keep in mind that having a massive cloud of magical darkness following you all the time is going to hinder you a lot more than it will help you. For example, youre sneaking in a moderately lit corridor. Someone comes down and notices the giant ball of magical darkness sitting in the middle of the hallway where there would normally be light. Even if they don't see you, specifically, theyre still going to raise the alarm, because there is something obviously out of place there. Youre also probably going to have a problem talking to people, for various reasons.

My advice would be that you find an object or creature that you can store in such a manner that the darkness would not be emanating unless it is removed from containment, if such a thing is possible, and curse/cast some permanent spell on that instead.

And don't forget the trigger happy jerks that drop fireballs and negative energy bursts on suspicious darkness *nod nod*

Also the thing about the eyes with the reversing of light and darkness...wouldn't that mean that at all times you are glowing brightly to your own vision? Wouldn't that hurt, constantly? I wonder if that would also happen from your eyelids, causing you to suffer from blinding attacks of brightness when you close your darkness laden eyelids. Further, during the day you'll have 10 feet of 'bright light' and everywhere else will appear to be pitch darkness at high noon and what have you. At least during the night you'll be able to see things normally, but you'll still be emitting a bright source right next to your eyes at all times.

To take this idea further: since the curse is attached to your person, does that mean that the darkness will extend from your skin? Bearing this in mind, you could wind up looking like a mysterious pile of clothing with darkness radiating off of exposed surfaces. Or you could wear a cloak and point your arms out at things to make 'beams of darkness' like a flashlight but with darkness.

Of course, this would be much more managable with an arcane mark, because the mark would be the emanating source for the darkness. You could get it like a tattoo on your belly and just keep your shirt over it most of the time and then roll it up to get your darkness effect. Sure, not so helpful with armor, or if you're trying to get laid, but you could place it in different areas. Like maybe on your palm and wear gloves all the time to keep the darkness from leaking out.

[Inevitability]

This really reminds me of that Oglaf (NSWF) comic where a random person tries to get himself cursed to get the greatest possible love life, stating it'd be a curse because people will be jealous.

But in this case, try to imagine the curses being caused by a CE creature. As long as the curses directly cause pain and suffering, nothing goes wrong. However, once curses start to look beneficial, the creature starts looking for ways to twist it. In this case, it might decide to only create darkness around the subject's eyes.

[grarrrg]

Incidentally, this also works with ... hilariously, Continual Flame (have fun figuring out how those two effects interact).

If needed, there's an EXTENDED FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhfm?Illuminating-Darkness) for that.

There's also Umbral Spell which says "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area affected by an umbral spell if they are of a higher level than the umbral spell’s unmodified spell level."
Bestow Curse is either a 3rd of 4th level spell. Continual Flame is a 2nd or 3rd level.
Worst case scenario, both are 3rd level spells, in which case Continual Flame is NOT of a higher spell level, so Darkness reigns supreme!

Beware the Daylight spell, it always wins.


As long as the curses directly cause pain and suffering, nothing goes wrong. However, once curses start to look beneficial, the creature starts looking for ways to twist it. In this case, it might decide to only create darkness around the subject's eyes.

:smallsigh:
Thanks for playing, go back up and read post #8 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431838-Can-you-bestow-harmless-curses&p=19625762&viewfull=1#post19625762), since you missed it the first time.

[gooddragon1]

Your skin becomes lime green.
You have blue hair.
You must do the robot while speaking.
When not in a natural environment, your skin and gear looks like that fake camouflage pattern and color.
You gain scientist hair at all times.
Your hair is permanently set to flat top. Guile flat top. His theme music plays while you walk.

[Segev]

Actually, bestowing theme music on somebody as a curse sounds like a GREAT use of the spell. :smallcool:

[Spore]

As for the Umbral Curse I would either go full Evil Genie on that one or go social outcast or "weird shadow monster must be driven out of town" on that one, depending on the curse.

Evil Genie would be "everyone who wants do see you suddenly gains Darkvision" regardless of the curse you chose unless your character beats a hefty Spellcraft check and invests money equal to half of a permanencied Darkness spell.

Social outcast is relatively simple. No NPC wants to deal with you. You look dangerous and like something that drags danger along like a tail.

"Get the Monster" is a version above social outcast. The superstitious townsfolk want you out of town. They refuse service and threaten you. They are too scared to really attack but you will be asked to leave or else they will ask their lord to send troops to remove you.

[Segev]

I honestly think those who are advocating it "backfiring" somehow are being needlessly hostile to the concept and adding effects which need not be added. Bestow curse is a versatile spell that is usually used to inflict undesirable states on people. But nothing in its description says that the victim has to be displeased by the results. Merely that that's usually what happens. Heck, a "curse of drunkenness" that made somebody always feel inebriated could be mechanically modeled by the penalty to Int (or Wis), and there are people who'd love to be constantly drunk without having to keep paying for more alcohol.

[Spore]

Heck, a "curse of drunkenness" that made somebody always feel inebriated could be mechanically modeled by the penalty to Int (or Wis), and there are people who'd love to be constantly drunk without having to keep paying for more alcohol.

This curse still incurs penalties and is a double-edged sword (for someone who loves being drunk). That's a classical use of "curse". OP wants something like "make my nose itch three times a day and give me partial permanent invisibility for it".

[Segev]

This curse still incurs penalties and is a double-edged sword (for someone who loves being drunk). That's a classical use of "curse". OP wants something like "make my nose itch three times a day and give me partial permanent invisibility for it".

It is definitely "no greater" than the power of the spell's example effects. The permanent darkness effect is from a metamagic feat, not from the spell itself. As noted, he could use other spells to achieve the same effect (including arcane mark).

I don't see a problem, here.

[P.F.]

In this case the "benefit" of bestow curse is that it cannot be removed without break enchantment or similar, and thus the darkness effect is not lost due to being hit with dispel magic.

Given that this "benefit" exists regardless of the effects of the curse, I don't know that it matters what the curse is. However, bestow curse is a moderately powerful necromancy, so I doubt that any effect would be entirely harmless.

Also the obvious negative effects of being shrouded in un-dispel-able magical darkness at all times, regardless of the added mechanical benefits, very nearly qualifies as a curse on its own.

In the end, I see nothing in the rules to prohibit this.

[Oberon Kenobi]

Your hair is permanently set to flat top. Guile flat top. His theme music plays while you walk.
Actually, bestowing theme music on somebody as a curse sounds like a GREAT use of the spell. :smallcool:I also am intrigued by your philosophy and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :smallbiggrin:
If needed, there's an EXTENDED FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhfm?Illuminating-Darkness) for that.I was actually talking about casting an Umbral Continual Flame. Because Continual Flame isn't a higher level than itself, it doesn't penetrate its own darkness. So you'd have a ten-foot radius of darkness and then a halo of magical torchlight outside of that. :smalltongue:

It would actually work better than Arcane Mark in some cases, since it targets the whole object instead of a single area. Colossal glowing boulder that's really hard to see, how nutty is that?


Not at MY table. Wish-chicken go!Fair enough! I aint gonna get mad if that's how you would handle it. I would personally allow it sans backfire if the player had invested the effort into it, playing off of the above rationale that constantly radiating darkness could very well be more trouble than it's worth (and because if I think something is dumb I talk to the player about it instead of hitting their class features with a stick), but I can totally grok that GMing style. More power to ya, friends. :smallcool:

[Nifft]

Fair enough! I aint gonna get mad if that's how you would handle it. I would personally allow it sans backfire if the player had invested the effort into it, playing off of the above rationale that constantly radiating darkness could very well be more trouble than it's worth (and because if I think something is dumb I talk to the player about it instead of hitting their class features with a stick), but I can totally grok that GMing style. More power to ya, friends. :smallcool:

IMHO it's not necessarily about effort -- it's about how some changes to the rules are acceptable, and others are not. Specifically, I'd look at the intent of the rules as well as the letter of the rules. If a change only affects one or the other, then it's probably okay.

Example #1: the Umbral Arcane Mark thing. That's a change in the intended effect of Arcane Mark, but not a change in the actual rules. So that's a clever discovery of an unintended consequence, and that's cool.

Example #2: the background music curse. That's a change in the letter of the rules, but it's entirely in line with the intended effect of the spell. So IMHO that's also cool, since it's abiding by the intent of the rules, even if it's changing the letter of the rules.

The harmless Umbral curse would require both a violation of the intent of the rules, and a violation of the letter of the rules. That's not cool.

All IMHO, of course.

[P.F.]

The harmless Umbral curse would require both a violation of the intent of the rules, and a violation of the letter of the rules. That's not cool.

All IMHO, of course.

I'm not sure where it violates the letter of the rule (RAW). Bestow curse allows a player-invented curse as long as it is no more powerful than those listed, and a harmless curse is clearly not more powerful than -6 to an ability score, etc. By the rules as written, this is explicitly allowed.

[Nifft]

I'm not sure where it violates the letter of the rule (RAW). Bestow curse allows a player-invented curse as long as it is no more powerful than those listed, and a harmless curse is clearly not more powerful than -6 to an ability score, etc. By the rules as written, this is explicitly allowed.

It's the word "curse".

It has a meaning.

You don't bestow an "effect", you bestow evil misfortune.

You can ignore the meaning of the word "curse" -- but again, that's a violation of the intent and the letter of the rules.

[Svata]

Would an annoying, constant buzzing only the subject can hear be acceptable as a curse to you then, Nifft? It would certainly be malignant. Also, why are we arguing over what constitutes acceptable or not when the only one who's opinion matters is OP's DM? Right, stupid question. Because that's what we do.

[Nifft]

Would an annoying, constant buzzing only the subject can hear be acceptable as a curse to you then, Nifft? It would certainly be malignant. Does it have an in-game detrimental mechanical impact? If so, it might be fine.


Also, why are we arguing over what constitutes acceptable or not when the only one who's opinion matters is OP's DM? Because providing helpful advice and a useful metric to help another DM think about potential player suggestions is helpful, and helping is a thing that I like to do.


Right, stupid question. Because that's what we do. Damn right.

[P.F.]

You don't bestow an "effect", you bestow evil misfortune.

Thus, since one does not bestow an "effect," if the "evil misfortune" bestowed has no "effect" in game mechanics terms, then it is allowed by the text of bestow curse.

[Nifft]

Thus, since one does not bestow an "effect," if the "evil misfortune" bestowed has no "effect" in game mechanics terms, then it is allowed by the text of bestow curse.

Pretending to miss the point isn't going to increase your internet score.

[P.F.]

Pretending to miss the point isn't going to increase your internet score.

Like D&D, the internet isn't that kind of game. Perhaps you were thinking of golf?

Literature from diverse cultures is chock-full of curses with little or no game rule effects. The curse of bad luck at cards. The curse of a very small penis. The curse of knowing the hour of you own death. The "curse of immortality," a tremendously common theme, but sadly not suitable for bestow curse because it is almost certainly "more powerful" than -6 to an ability score, etc. Not to mention the long list of "cursed with awesome."

The point, in case it has been missed by anyone, is that bestow curse allows the caster to designate their own "curse," so long as it is "no more powerful" than the default curses listed in the spell description.

[Nifft]

The point, in case it has been missed by anyone, is that bestow curse allows the caster to designate their own "curse," so long as it is "no more powerful" than the default curses listed in the spell description.

The point, in case you've actually missed it (rather than just pretending), is that "curse" has a more specific meaning than the one you're trying to use.

Curses ought to be detrimental. That's both the letter of the rules -- since the rules use the word "curse" -- and the intent.

Since you mention Cursed with Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome), maybe you'd like to go inform yourself and give the article a read? Notice the scare-quotes, and how it's an ironic inversion of the intention of "curse" since it's actually a benefit. The trope "Cursed with Awesome" is entirely aligned with the understanding of "curse" that I'm using.

[Grek]

The phrase "Letter of the Rules" does not work like that. Words used in D&D rules do not mean the same thing as they do when used outside D&D rules. You can't import connotative meanings of words into the game and treat them as rules text. If you could, then you'd get people arguing that Burning Hands should injure the caster - after all, it says it burns your hands right in the name!

[Nifft]

The phrase "Letter of the Rules" does not work like that. Words used in D&D rules do not mean the same thing as they do when used outside D&D rules. You can't import connotative meanings of words into the game and treat them as rules text. If you could, then you'd get people arguing that Burning Hands should injure the caster - after all, it says it burns your hands right in the name!

When I say "the letter of the rules", what I mean is NOT the spell name.

[P.F.]

Curses ought to be detrimental

The OP already expressed disinterest in beneficial curses, so we can safely disregard everything to the right of "cursed with nothing." In line with that we can probably also leave off "the curse of knowing that you've been cursed" and "the mysterious curse."

But beyond that, we are still left with mildly annoying curses that are so minimal as to have no game rule effect, such as OP's suggested "skin color changes to bright pink," or "the curse of blinking your eyes slightly more often than normal," or "the curse of always talking in a Monty Python-esque accent."

Failing these, there are a nigh infinite number of laughably minuscule curses which do have game rule effects, such as "character's max push or drag (= 5x max load) is reduced by 1 lb." or "character drops and loses 1 cp every time he/she makes a purchase which requires using copper coins," or "character suffers -1 to Knowledge (nobility) checks made whilst discussing politics with her uncle."

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, being surrounded by perpetual gloom has a number of drawbacks already; perhaps we could eliminate the middleman and simply curse OP's character with a 10' radius darkness effect? Then he really would be cursed with awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome).


When I say "the letter of the rules", what I mean is NOT the spell name.

Which reminds me, "the curse of spells that do what the spell names say they do!"

[Grek]

My understanding is that you are claiming that Bestow Curse is required to have a meaningful detrimental effect based on the fact that the spell description uses the word "curse" and that curse has a connotation of harmfulness which should not be ignored when interpreting the rules, and that the lack of an explicit statement to that effect in the text of the spell description should not be taken to mean that Bestow Curse can be used for non-detrimental curses.

Is that an inaccurate summary of your point?

[Jack_Simth]

I can understand wanting to use Bestow Curse - it's a fairly resilient spell, requiring either specific or expensive counters. But yes, the darkness effect is going to be it's own problem (serious downer for social situations), so you really want to put it on a different Permanent spell that goes on an item (so you can put the darkness away when you want). Arcane Mark is good, Sepia Snake Sigil is good, Explosive Runes is OK, Fire Trap is a decent choice, Magic Aura is fine (not permanent, but at days/level and no expensive components, you'll barely care about the difference).

So yeah, I'd be fine with a harmless curse for such a purpose. The darkness will cause it's own problems, so if you curse yourself with something you won't care about, I'd be cool with that. You'd probably end up regretting it at some point, but I'd be cool with that. Do make sure the rest of the party is prepared to deal with the darkness, if nothing else.


The curse of the girdle of opposite gender is that the girdle is visually unappealing, and you cannot take it off in order to have sex.

It's unambiguously a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad item.

The gender-change is simply not its only relevant feature.
The effect is also on the list of Random Drawbacks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/cursed-items#TOC-Table:-Drawbacks) for badly-made magic items (30-32, 3% chance on the drawback table; Drawback itself is a 61-75, so it's 3% of 15%, or just under half a percent overall).

[Nifft]

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, being surrounded by perpetual gloom has a number of drawbacks already; perhaps we could eliminate the middleman and simply curse OP's character with a 10' radius darkness effect? Then he really would be cursed with awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome). That is certainly a thing which should be avoided.


Which reminds me, "the curse of spells that do what the spell names say they do!" That's a terrifying curse.


My understanding is that you are claiming that Bestow Curse is required to have a meaningful detrimental effect based on the fact that the spell description uses the word "curse" and that curse has a connotation of harmfulness which should not be ignored when interpreting the rules, and that the lack of an explicit statement to that effect in the text of the spell description should not be taken to mean that Bestow Curse can be used for non-detrimental curses.

Is that an inaccurate summary of your point? "Curse" has denotation as well as connotation. Here are some of the denotational meanings:


: magical words that are said to cause trouble or bad luck for someone or the condition that results when such words are said

: a cause of trouble or bad luck


All of the examples presented in the bestow curse rules text do indeed cause trouble (or bad luck) for the victim, so the meaning of the word "curse" is supported by all of the existing rules text.

I'm asserting that a spell which says it imposes a curse ought to cause some kind of trouble, or bad luck, at the very least.

I'm representing this trouble (or bad luck) with some kind of detrimental curse-themed in-game effect.

[Segev]

Example #2: the background music curse. That's a change in the letter of the rules, but it's entirely in line with the intended effect of the spell. So IMHO that's also cool, since it's abiding by the intent of the rules, even if it's changing the letter of the rules.

I don't think it's a change to the letter of the rules. Bestow curse says it can do other, unlisted effects that are no more powerful than those listed in the spell proper. "Theme music" is certainly not more powerful than -6 to an Ability score.

[Necroticplague]

When thinking about creative mechanical tricks, I tend to ask myself two questions: 1.Is it against the rules, 2.it it hilariously overpowered?

Number one is a negative. Bestow Curse is very vague as to what effects it can bestow, but only gives a limit of how maximally damaging they can get. I would disallow flat-out beneficial curses, because it's hard to compare a positive to a negative in terms of stregnth. However, something that's inconsequential or incredibly minor definitely falls within the scope of the spell. Good examples would be a lot of things which made you look freaky, which aren't uncommon curses in literature.

Number two is also a negative. It's not horrifically useful for stealth (because it follows you and is easily visible), it's only a bit useful for combat, and can come back to bite you (people assume your evil, other people hide from the party in the darkness). It mostly seems useful for classes that need to be standing in darkness for their abilities to work. So unless you do something very specific with your build, it's not that much of a bump.

I see no reason to rule against this. Heck, if you aren't a spellcaster, I don't see why you couldn't hire someone to cast this on you.

[Kid Jake]

This really reminds me of that Oglaf (NSWF) comic where a random person tries to get himself cursed to get the greatest possible love life, stating it'd be a curse because people will be jealous.


It reminded me of the OTHER Oglaf comic where the guy is cursed to be the most skilled in all the land in something he really doesn't want to do, but to waste such talent would be unthinkable. :smallbiggrin:

[Oberon Kenobi]

I like the interesting discussion this has been generating. I would like to shake it up a bit by echoing a point I made above, that Spellblights can be inflicted with Bestow Curse. I feel this reinforces the point that in addition to directly detrimental effects, the spell can be used to inflict conditions that are either simply weird or even situationally useful (Ebon Eyes being the example I used, though it's not the only one; and that one is flatly beneficial to anyone with Darkvision, so I wouldn't blame anyone for putting the kibosh on it).

I will also point out that price wise it's about four times as much as an Everburning Torch to have this cast on you. I invite the comparative benefit analysis.

[gooddragon1]

I will also point out that price wise it's about four times as much as an Everburning Torch to have this cast on you. I invite the comparative benefit analysis.

I'm not a good DM (tried it, but I was too focused on mechanics rather than story). However, I'd treat bestow curse as being able to produce even beneficial effects of spells with a permanent duration as long as they didn't have a GP cost. If they did, I'd have the player produce the equivalent GP cost but get an extra benefit if it were below 4th level (as a wizard) or 3rd level (as a cleric).

Example:
Whenever I say a certain word "X" or perform a certain action "Y", I can create a light as bright as a torch that I can direct as a standard action to move to anywhere within 30 feet of myself. This light persists until I do something "Z".

But that's probably one of the reasons why I wasn't such a good DM. Too lenient.

[Inevitability]

:smallsigh:
Thanks for playing, go back up and read post #8 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431838-Can-you-bestow-harmless-curses&p=19625762&viewfull=1#post19625762), since you missed it the first time.

:smalleek:

Oops! I thought an Umbral was some kind of pathfinder creature. I'm sorry, I'm sorry!

[Svata]

Which reminds me, "the curse of spells that do what the spell names say they do!"

Meteor Swarm is now terrifying.

[Ogh_the_Second]

Meteor Swarm is now terrifying.

... Fox's Cunning ... (Int 2?)
... Endure Elements ... (let's summon those elements now!)

[Psyren]

Which reminds me, "the curse of spells that do what the spell names say they do!"

Heck, I'd take that one.

Divine Power: become a deity
Prayer: request a Miracle
Doom: Target dies after time elapses
Sanctuary: Teleports me to my safehouse
Tongues: ....ewww.

[gooddragon1]

Heck, I'd take that one.

Divine Power: become a deity
Prayer: request a Miracle
Doom: Target dies after time elapses
Sanctuary: Teleports me to my safehouse
Tongues: ....ewww.

Hmm... Sunburst?

[atemu1234]

Hmm... Sunburst?

Apocalypse. For those that requires sunlight, at any rate.

In a D&D context, it closes the portal to the Elemental Plane of Fire that is the sun (if I remember my mythos correctly).

[Fouredged Sword]

You could just curse yourself in a specific way that you know will never come up in play if your DM insists on a consistent level of "strength" for the curse.

Curse of the accordion.

You cannot use a accordion. -12 to preform (accordion).

Nobody will ever know.

[enderlord99]

Slightly relevant. (http://www.mariowiki.com/Black_Chest_Demon)

[Pex]

I did this at my latest game session. The party was fighting uberpowerful troglodyte creatures, troglodyte-type creatures made to battle a 13th level party. Their stench proved debilitating taking a couple of party members out with nausea. Due to the combat area and great use of Wall of Force by the wizard, we didn't have to fight them all at once, only three out of eight. It was our third combat of the day. We decided to rest up and take out the rest the next day. Freedom of Movement was good to ignore their grappling, but nausea was still a problem. The barbarian had an amulet making him immune to poison which was effective. As an Oracle of Life I could go into Energy Body, gaining the elemental subtype to be immune to the poisonous stench as well.

I thought out of the box to protect everyone else. I would cast Bestow Curse on them, cursing them to lose their sense of smell. Can't smell anything, can't become nauseous. The spell itself is not evil, and I was not using it for evil purposes, so it was all AOK. I got a laugh at the thought I would be cursing a paladin. With the party protected from the creatures' two most dangerous attack modes, taking out the remaining 5 was easy.

I also have the spell Remove Curse to fix them later.

[Coidzor]

Slightly relevant. (http://www.mariowiki.com/Black_Chest_Demon)

That's also how you get your bomb and arrow capacity increased in Link's Awakening. A curse of encumbrance or overloading or something.

[SaraAlexiel]

From memory of the trading card of the ADND girdle of opposite gender?



oh, well, I suppose someone found it in the pathfinder rules.

Also, cursed items (at least used to) be unremovable without removing the curse first, so not being able to take the girdle off would be part of the curse because that's just how cursed items work.

The Girdle of (femininity/masculinity) loses all effect after permanently changing the character's gender. therefore the player themselves is 'cursed' (not removable) and the belt turns into a strip of leather

[Malimar]

One of my players who had a penchant for prostitutes was hit with a Curse of Fertility. Make of that what you will.

The prostitutes in my world tend to buy Curses of Infertility. I suppose the two would cancel out. Not all prostitutes, though. Being a curse, it can have unpleasant side-effects.

[Xuldarinar]

Seeing this has been brought back up, I reiterate;


Umbral Curse of Blindness.
Also, check out Blood of Shadows. There are feats that benefit an individual who goes into combat blind.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I was going to have a powerful fey creature that enjoys screwing with others use Bestow Curse to make a site's guardian appear to have an evil aura. I want to mess with my smite-happy paladin.

[Segev]

I was going to have a powerful fey creature that enjoys screwing with others use Bestow Curse to make a site's guardian appear to have an evil aura. I want to mess with my smite-happy paladin.

Please understand that I only ask this because a lot of the time, people seem to want to "mess with the paladin" for reasons that seem not to appreciate the big picture. What, exactly, is the problem with him being smite-happy, in your game? Paladins are supposed to be a major threat to evil creatures; it's their whole point as a combatant. It really is their biggest tool when it comes to being effective in combat when averaged out; they don't (theoretically) do the same damage as a well-focused fighter or barbarian when not facing evil things, so they do more against evil things to counter-balance it.

"Messing" with him for using his class feature frequently strikes me as unkind.

Now, messing with him to trick him into wasting it? That's potentially just part of a challenge. Like an illusion that makes a fighter attack thin air, or a wizard waste a big spell. But the phrase "mess with [the] smite-happy paladin" triggers warning bells, so I am asking you to make sure you examine your motivation so-as not to set it up as a punishment rather than as a challenge. The difference can be subtle, but it can seriously impact execution. Punishments are designed to curtail a behavior; challenges are designed to bring other skills to the fore to make sure resources are not wasted. If you go in with it as a punishment, and he treats it like a challenge, you'll find yourself frustrated and trying to "mess with" him in ever-escalating ways, and probably won't achieve your goal of curtailing the smiting. I'm not sure that should be your goal, anyway; if it is, please elaborate on why you feel it necessary.

[Necroticplague]

Please understand that I only ask this because a lot of the time, people seem to want to "mess with the paladin" for reasons that seem not to appreciate the big picture. What, exactly, is the problem with him being smite-happy, in your game? Paladins are supposed to be a major threat to evil creatures; it's their whole point as a combatant. It really is their biggest tool when it comes to being effective in combat when averaged out; they don't (theoretically) do the same damage as a well-focused fighter or barbarian when not facing evil things, so they do more against evil things to counter-balance it.

"Messing" with him for using his class feature frequently strikes me as unkind.

Now, messing with him to trick him into wasting it? That's potentially just part of a challenge. Like an illusion that makes a fighter attack thin air, or a wizard waste a big spell. But the phrase "mess with [the] smite-happy paladin" triggers warning bells, so I am asking you to make sure you examine your motivation so-as not to set it up as a punishment rather than as a challenge. The difference can be subtle, but it can seriously impact execution. Punishments are designed to curtail a behavior; challenges are designed to bring other skills to the fore to make sure resources are not wasted. If you go in with it as a punishment, and he treats it like a challenge, you'll find yourself frustrated and trying to "mess with" him in ever-escalating ways, and probably won't achieve your goal of curtailing the smiting. I'm not sure that should be your goal, anyway; if it is, please elaborate on why you feel it necessary.I think you're reading "smite-happy" wrong. It's not "is quick to use their Smite when in combat". It's typically "Spams detect evil, attacks anyone who pings", which is a behavior that should be curtailed, so a punishment is appropriate.I've done similar, except it was a magic item instead of a curse (magic items made with liquid pain always emit evil auras). The other way was by playing Detect Evil as the rules actually state, instead of "is it evil?" "Yes/no" (i.e, it says, at best, "there are X evil auras in this arc your looking in". Nothing about distance, or what those auras belong to).

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Necrotic is correct. I mean yes, that Rakshasa was going to try to murder and replace one of the party, but when everyone is a minor celebrity and she just approaches and tries to shake hands and he responds with a smite to the face... yeah, trying to curtail that. It's not illegal to be evil.

[Malimar]

The other way was by playing Detect Evil as the rules actually state, instead of "is it evil?" "Yes/no" (i.e, it says, at best, "there are X evil auras in this arc your looking in". Nothing about distance, or what those auras belong to).

Possibly you need to reread detect evil. It takes 3 rounds, but absolutely it gives distance and, presuming there's only one creature in the relevant square, which creatures the auras belong to.


3rd Round
The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

[Segev]

Necrotic is correct. I mean yes, that Rakshasa was going to try to murder and replace one of the party, but when everyone is a minor celebrity and she just approaches and tries to shake hands and he responds with a smite to the face... yeah, trying to curtail that. It's not illegal to be evil.
It's also an evil act to kill somebody who hasn't done anything wrong. Knowing they have the potential and will to doesn't mean you know they are about to, nor that they have. So it's unlawful because you've no proof (and a pattern of it would amount to Chaotic), and it's Evil because you're killing people just because they might have done something wrong or might do something wrong.

The Chaotic act alone can cause a temporary loss of powers. The Evil act can cause permanent.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Well, it was a rakshasa. Just by it existing in a city you can correctly assume its already killed and replaced someone.

[Segev]

Well, it was a rakshasa. Just by it existing in a city you can correctly assume its already killed and replaced someone.

Once you identify it as a rakshasa, sure. But detect evil only identifies the person as evil. He could just be a cruel tax collector who enjoys making people miserable while he audits them. Mean and despicable, certainly, but not worthy of death.

[Necroticplague]

Well, it was a rakshasa. Just by it existing in a city you can correctly assume its already killed and replaced someone.

That's a fairly big assumption. If it's sapient, it can be reasoned with, and thus integrated into a society. It's entirely possible it just lives there as a normal citizen. Heck, it's not even like rakasha are demons or devils.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

... No, Rakshasa are fiends. Just like Oni. Besides, I was going easy on this guy because I had rolled up a way-too-tough encounter for them; combat was gonna happen either way, I was just surprised it was the paladin acting like a murderhobo.

[Necroticplague]

... No, Rakshasa are fiends.
My point still stands. Can still be reasoned with and integrated.

I thought Fiends were Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype?

[Segev]

... No, Rakshasa are fiends.

*inserts an "r" into the last word*

Aww, that's sweet of you. I'm sure they agree.


>_> <_<

[Lhurgyof]

The Book of Vile Darkness has a list of alternate curses.